National Redress Scheme

Adjourned debate on motion of Hon. F. Pangallo:

That this council—

1. Welcomes the establishment of a National Redress Scheme and the announcement of a national apology;

2. Appreciates that survivors have been waiting a long time for a National Redress Scheme and that the implementation of such a scheme is urgent and overdue;

3. Acknowledges the concerns that the scheme does not fulfil all the recommendations of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse regarding the Redress Scheme;

4. Notes that critical issues, such as the adequacy of the maximum payments and the counselling available to survivors under the scheme, remain of concern to survivors and their representatives;

5. Recognises that relevant prior payments should not be indexed under the scheme; and

6. Encourages the state government to work with the federal government and other states to strengthen the scheme.

(Continued from 26 July 2018.)

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN (20:41): I rise to support this motion, which refers to the National Redress Scheme and the announcement of a national apology. When this motion was first moved in July last year, it noted the significant event that was the passing of the National Redress Scheme bill in the federal parliament and the announcement of a national apology. That year, 17 June marked the 10^th anniversary of the formal apology offered by the government of South Australia to children abused in state care.

Many individuals and organisations have worked very hard over many years to make the Redress Scheme a reality. Survivors and survivor advocate groups must of course receive special mention: the survivors for the terrible things they have endured and yet have found the strength to communicate in order to prevent the same, horrific experiences happening to others, and the survivor advocate groups who have worked tirelessly to ensure that a scheme such as the National Redress Scheme does come to fruition.

The motion acknowledges the concerns that the scheme does not fulfil all the recommendations of the royal commission into institutional child sexual abuse regarding the Redress Scheme. It is not perfect, which is why paragraph (6) of the motion is so important. It says that the council:

6. Encourages the state government to work with the federal government and other states to strengthen the scheme.

'To strengthen the scheme' because the work is not over. Those who have suffered unimaginable abuse must have the significance of that abuse recognised, the long-term impacts on each individual survivor admitted and understood and the devastating effect on those betrayed by the very people and institutions whom they should have been able to trust.

There are other concerns with the scheme, however, and the Hon. Frank Pangallo referred to the way that previous payments of redress via other schemes are indexed. I note that the government has moved an amendment to remove that portion of the motion. I remind the council of one of the concerns that the Hon. Frank Pangallo raised. He said:

The indexation of previous payments, part of which often went to pay legal fees to pursue redress in the first place, may mean that some survivors' redress payments are reduced to nothing.

'Reduced to nothing,' Mr President. Mr Pangallo went on to say that survivor advocacy group CLAN has campaigned for indexation to be taken out of the Redress Scheme, because past payments were usually small and consumed by legal fees. We consider that that is an important point.

We know that many survivors of child sexual abuse only reveal their abuse many years after the event. Ongoing support, particularly through counselling, is hugely important for healing—healing being something that some survivors will not achieve for many, many years, if at all, such is the abhorrent nature of sexual abuse. We should thank those who laboured so long to achieve the establishment of this Redress Scheme. Whilst it is not perfect, it is certainly a step in the right direction. I therefore commend the motion to the council.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK (Minister for Human Services) (20:45): I thank the Hon. Mr Pangallo for his continuing interest in the National Redress Scheme. Firstly, I would like to put on the record in this place the government's support generally for the motion before us today. I would like to congratulate the Premier and the Attorney-General for their action on opting into the National Redress Scheme and swiftly passing the legislation through this parliament.

There is a lot of work being done by ministers across the country in making this scheme the best that it can be for survivors. The government particularly agrees with items 1 and 2 as proposed by the member, noting that the national apology was actually delivered by the Prime Minister on 22 October 2018. We recently celebrated the one-year anniversary of this apology, with the Attorney-General and Minister for Child Protection supporting a number of events with survivors and their representative groups.

The National Redress Scheme is an important and overdue response to the past wrongs against children that have gone unanswered for too long, which is why this government moved swiftly to ensure its full implementation in South Australia. I am also conscious that the National Redress Scheme will never be able to fully compensate survivors of institutional child sexual abuse for the lifelong trauma that many have and will continue to endure.

The scheme has now been operating for nearly 18 months of its 10-year lifespan, and I can pass on the following data in relation to the scheme's operation:

the scheme has received over 5,000 applications since its commencement on 1 July 2018;

as at 8 November 2019, 835 determinations have been made by the commonwealth scheme operator;

around 728 redress payments have been made in total across both government and non-government institutions;

as at 14 November 2019, the South Australian government has received 324 requests for information in respect to 171 unique applicants, and 248 requests for information relating to 138 unique applicants have been responded to;

27 offers of redress have been made by the commonwealth scheme operator to applicants where the South Australian government has been determined to be the responsible institution, to a total value of $2.6 million, with 23 of these having been accepted.

In terms of items 3 and 4 of this motion, I acknowledge there are differences between the National Redress Scheme, as established by the relevant commonwealth legislation, and the recommendations of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. I can understand the interest of members and others in why the scheme may not, in every way, fully reflect the recommendations of the royal commission.

It is important to recognise that the National Redress Scheme was developed in response to the recommendations of the royal commission and following significant consultation between federal, state and territory governments, an independent advisory panel comprised of survivor representatives, and non-government institutions.

Although this government was not involved in the relevant negotiations, I am advised that any departure from the royal commission's recommendations was considered necessary in order to secure the greatest possible participation by institutions in the scheme and, therefore, that the greatest number of survivors would have access to the redress offered under the scheme.

This applies in particular in relation to concern that the upper limit of a redress payment under the scheme is $150,000, rather than $200,000, as recommended by the royal commission. Even though the royal commission recommended an upper limit of $200,000, it also anticipated an average redress payment of around $65,000. To date, payments made to South Australian applicants under the scheme have averaged closer to $85,000. This also applies to the adequacy of the counselling aspect of redress as contemplated by the scheme, which in South Australia amounts to an additional payment of up to $5,000 to an eligible applicant to source therapeutic services of their choice.

I acknowledge that the royal commission recommended that unlimited lifelong counselling be made available to persons who suffered institutional child sexual abuse. Again, the scope of counselling available under the scheme represents the position arrived at by all jurisdictions following significant consultation, with the aim of securing the greatest possible participation by institutions in the scheme. I note that an applicant's receipt of redress under the National Redress Scheme does not affect their eligibility for low-cost or free mental health services via Medicare Better Access programs, which include up to 10 sessions per year.

At item 5 the member has called for the abolition of indexation of relevant prior payments for the purposes of the deduction of those prior payments from a redress payment under the National Redress Scheme. The government has concerns with this proposal, as indexation of prior payments at roughly the rate of inflation is required by section 30 of the commonwealth act. The indexation of prior payments to bring them up to present value is the fairest way of accounting for those prior payments across all eligible applicants, irrespective of when those payments were received.

In practice, where an applicant can show that a significant portion of a relevant prior payment went towards their legal fees at the time, and therefore was not actually received by them, that portion can be removed from the relevant prior payment, which is then indexed for the purposes of calculating the total redress payment under the scheme.

In relation to the sixth item, this government, along with all participating jurisdictions, continues to closely monitor the implementation of the National Redress Scheme to ensure its fair and consistent operation. The Ministers' Redress Scheme Governance Board recently met in Adelaide, specifically on 29 November, and agreed to a number of actions to improve the timeliness of determinations under the scheme. A review of the scheme is required after the first two years, which will take place in July next year, and this will provide an opportunity to further reflect on and refine the scheme's operation.

It continues to be important for potential applicants to seek advice about their options and about how the National Redress Scheme might apply to their particular circumstances. I encourage any potential applicants, or others seeking further information about the National Redress Scheme, to access the dedicated website established by the federal government at nationalredress.gov.au or to call the dedicated hotline on 1800 737 377.

Information and assistance for South Australian applicants is also available from the Victim Support Service, Relationships Australia and Nunkuwarrin Yunti, all of which have received funding to provide dedicated redress support services in this state. Once again, I thank the honourable member for his continuing interest in this scheme, which this government is privileged to participate in.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO (20:53): I thank the Hon. Clare Scriven and the Hon. Michelle Lensink for their contributions, and I commend the government for its legislative support for the scheme.

My colleague the Hon. Connie Bonaros and I have spoken at length in this place about the significant deficiencies within the National Redress Scheme. The effectiveness of the scheme relies on adequate redress to acknowledge the significance of the abuse from the perspective of the survivors. In the view of SA-Best it falls short of that aim, for reasons outlined in my speech to this motion and in other speeches on the issue.

As the Hon. Michelle Lensink has outlined, the National Redress Scheme has received over 5,290 applications and made 835 decisions, with only 728 payments being made out of the large number of applications. It is heartening to see that a large number of inquiries have been received in South Australia, although disappointingly just a few have been given offers.

The average wait for processing an application can stretch out to 12 months. So many more institutions are yet to join and have until July 2020 to do so; in fact, 604 applications are on hold because certain institutions are yet to join the scheme. This is hardly fair to the many survivors of sexual abuse in our institutions and only further serves to compound their trauma.

Disturbingly, I have recently been informed that the Jehovah's Witnesses in Australia, including in South Australia, have been secretly disposing their property holdings to avoid any claims that may be lodged against them. The effectiveness of the scheme relies on adequate redress to acknowledge the significance of the abuse from the perspective of survivors. I note that the government has an amendment to the motion to leave out paragraph 5, which refers to indexation. Again, as I indicated we will be strongly opposing that. I will do so because the way the previous payments of redress via other schemes are indexed is very important to survivors applying for redress under the National Redress Scheme.

The indexation of previous payments, part of which often went to pay legal fees to pursue redress in the first place, may mean that some survivors' redress payments are reduced to nothing. Care Leavers Australasia Network (CLAN), a national independent body that represents, supports and advocates for people who were raised in Australian and New Zealand orphanages, children's homes and foster care, has campaigned tirelessly for indexation to be taken out of the Redress Scheme because past payments were usually small and consumed by legal fees. Survivors describe indexation as theft—a tax that should not be used.

The human cost of what indexation means to survivors is best illustrated by a recent article on the issue published last week on ABC News online. The article states:

Sixty-four-year-old David Emery is a survivor of child sexual abuse, who, despite being chronically ill, is considering turning down his offer of $70,000 from the National Redress Scheme.

[Mr Emery] was raped as a child while in the care of the Salvation Army, at the Box Hill and Bayswater Boys Homes east of Melbourne—places he described as 'hell holes'…

[Mr Emery] was awarded $37,000 in 2008, after pursuing legal action against the Salvation Army and the Anglican Church…his previous payment has been 'indexed' under the terms of the National Redress Scheme, at a rate of 1.9 per cent for every year since 2008—including the 14 months it took the Redress scheme to assess his application.

That is hardly fair. The article continues:

The redress scheme now considers Mr Emery's previous payment to be $44,733—and that's the figure they've deducted from his offer.

Even with that $44,733 taken out, Mr Emery has been made an offer of just under $70,000—well short of the maximum of $150,000 payable under the scheme.

He has now appealed to the scheme to receive a breakdown of how it calculated the offer—but he has not yet received it.

Mr Emery was quoted in the article as saying:

'I'm very upset. I really can't understand how they could come to that sort of offer, with, knowing what happened to me, and having that explained to them again and again. It's just, it's wrong.'

In closing, and for the reasons outlined, SA-Best strongly believes the previous payments should not be indexed and cannot support the amendment.

Amendment negatived; motion carried.